ACHHELAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/petitioner, named above has filed the present revision petition against the judgment and finding dated 21 -9 -1988 delivered by Shri R. K. Behar, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 2/1988 arising out of Criminal Case No. 69/81 decided on 18 -12 -1987 by Shri Yogesh Mathur, Railway Magistrate, Raipur, holding the accused/petitioner guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (Act in short) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default to simple imprisonment for 2 months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on receiving an information from some informer, D. Dongre, Sub -Inspector of Railway Security Force, Raipur went on 28 -3 -1980 along with the Railway Protection Force and witnesses to the Godown or shop of the Petitioner where second hand articles were found stocked and stored for sale. The petitioner is a junk -dealer (Kabadi) at Raipur. On search of the articles stocked in the said godown or shop of the petitioner being taken some property alleged to be either belonging to the Railways or used by Railway was also found stocked. The said articles were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P. 2. The statement (Ex. P -3) of the petitioner was recorded by Shri Dongre. Out of the said articles Zink slags were sent to Shri S. S. Mishra who has deposed that such slags are used in the, galvanising plant of the Indian Railways. Other articles were sent to Shri S. C. Pathak the then Shop Superintendent for being tested, examined and verified as to whether the said articles belong to or were in use of the Railways. Shri S. C. Pathak (PW 3) issued the certificate (Ex P -4) to the effect that the said articles are used in carriage and wagon department of Indian Railways. He further certified that some of the said articles are exclusively used by Railways and are not available in the open market.

(3.) IT has been argued that in the present case it could not be established that the property seized from the petitioner was Railway property. Further, it could also be not established that it could be reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.